>>I don't think the underlying design of .NET is unproven. I see it as a logical progression of what has been developed...
>
>Bah. Have you run any .NET apps on Windows .NET server or IIS6?
>

Yes and your point is????


>We had this discussion several weeks ago, where I was saying that there is more to the .NET platform than the pretty object you like. Scalability, Security, Reliabality, and privacy issues are all unproven because their platform doesn't even exist yet! Meanwhile, you stood by your conclusion that .NET is as good as gold because VS.NET had lots of neat objects.
>

You are over-simplyfing things a bit...

>
Since then, Microsoft's main focus has been announced, they have a lot of work to do in the areas that I addressed. Are you stil going to ignore these issues even after the horse's mouth verified that work is to be done?
>

I have never stated that VS .NET is gold as is. In fact, I am on the record with stating that part of the data story needs work. My guess, it will take at least 1 rev cycle, maybe more. But, it will happen... or at the very least, it is a good bet it will happen...

If you are going to characterize my arguments..please be acurate..


>
I'm not sure what you mean by "logical progression" but it occurs to me that VFP3 was a logical progression from FoxPRo 2. Is that enough evidence to consider it proven?
<

VFP 3 was a complete paradigm shift from Fox 2.x - period...